Re: [RFC PATCH] stash: accept options also when subcommand 'save' is omitted

From: Johannes Schindelin <johannes.schindelin@gmx.de>
Date: Aug 18, 2009, 22:46 UTC
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.1.00.0908190041200.8306@pacific.mpi-cbg.de>
In-Reply-To: <20090818223028.GB31176@coredump.intra.peff.net>

Hi,

On Tue, 18 Aug 2009, Jeff King wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 11:42:58PM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote:
> 
> > > I think yours is nicer, especially as we have just added the 
> > > '-p|--patch' option, as well. With what is there now, you can do 
> > > "git stash -p", but not "git stash -p -k".
> > 
> > But it is sloppy, in that it blindly accepts options that might be 
> > valid for several subcommands, not just "save".
> > 
> > That was the reason I did not implement it this way.
> > 
> > But we do not have such ambiguous options yet.
> > 
> > Or do we?  Look at what "list" accepts!
> > 
> > So please register my objection.
> 
> I don't see the problem. Either the option works for "stash save" or it
> does not.  If I say "git stash --quiet", then it _must_ be "git stash
> save --quiet", and not "git stash pop --quiet", because "save" is the
> only default command.

So if I say "git stash -q" by mistake, but wanted to say "git stash drop -q", then I am borked?

Bah!  I say: bah!

You're basically reintroducing at least part of the DWIMery that was reverted in 9488e875 and I have the distinct feeling that some people in this thread do not think hard enough about what would adher to the principle of least surprise even in the future (or even for people introducing other stash save options).

Well, you just go ahead and push through your patch, and I do what I promised on my blog.